The People v. Clyde Jerome Hill

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,v.CLYDE JEROME HILL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

(Super. Ct. No. CM032605)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , J.

P. v. Hill

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

In a trial to the court following his waiver of jury trial, defendant Clyde Jerome Hill was convicted of infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 273.5, subd. (a)) and acquitted of making criminal threats (§ 422). The court found true allegations that defendant had suffered two prior domestic violence convictions (§ 273.5, subd. (e)(1)) and had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the upper term of five years plus two years for the prior convictions. He was awarded 119 days' custody credit and 118 days' conduct credit and was ordered to pay a $1,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $1,200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $30 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).

FACTS

In April 2010, defendant lived with his girlfriend Betty Blazewick. According to her statement to a responding police officer, Blazewick got mad at defendant and slapped a cigarette out of his mouth. Thereafter, he called her "a name" and "struck her in the face." He followed her into the bathroom, grabbed her arms, and said, "Don't leave." She broke free of his grasp, went to a neighbor's house, and called the police. As she was leaving, defendant stated that, if she called the police and he went to jail, he would kill her. The police officer observed dried blood underneath Blazewick's right nostril and a swollen upper lip.

At trial, both Blazewick and defendant claimed that she had swung a cane at him, and he accidentally struck her face while trying to deflect the cane. Blazewick claimed she had not been truthful with the responding officer, evidently with respect to striking defendant with a cane, because she "was scared" and "didn't want to go to jail."

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

Our review discloses that the $30 court facilities assessment is not listed on the abstract of judgment. This may be due, at least in part, to the trial court's use of the January 2007 Revision of Judicial Council Form CR 290.1, which predates the facilities assessment. We shall direct the trial court to correct the abstract to include the facilities assessment.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.